Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:What I think is of no consequence for you — it depends on what you think, say, and do that will decide whether or not you wind up in hell.

My duty is just to teach what the Buddha taught, as far as I understand it, according to reliable sources

+1And I think bhante's point clearly addressed danielLion's inquiry:

danielLion wrote:If other Buddhists believed this we'd have no Abhidhamma, commentarial tradition, Visuddhimagga, etc.... We certainly wouldn't have Dhammawheel. We'd have doctrinal solidarity.

The Buddha and the Dhamma are not the problem. We are the problem. And so the purpose of the Abhidhamma, Vm,..and Dhammawheel forum are not there to expose the problem of the Dhamma. They are there as medium for practitioners to share their knowledge and experience to other practitioners. Sure, there're arguments and debates but I hope they're not there just for the sake of argument but to address any error or mistake we still need to improve upon..

SDC wrote:...you can't talk about it experientially but it [nibbana] can be discussed intellectually.

Which goes to Right View. I submit: intellectualizing vs. experiencing is a false dichotomy; theory and practice is a dialectic; Right View is an intellect/theory and experience/practice dialectic.Kindly,dL

Without a doubt. I was just stressing that at the present time I can offer no experiential information regarding nibbana. So any discussion would be intellectual in nature.